:USERNAME:

check out the scenario discussion group.

This thread was named "For the record..." but its starting to sound like a broken record. Wheres the locksmith when you need him.. Lewis

past 400m? You mean under 400m? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MantaRay: I would hate to see you stop making some of the informative posts and have them end up as some USERNAME vs FIONN drivel that you know these kind of threads produce. And i know how you hated to be attacked in those threads, so dont feed the evil <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice try but I aint biting. BTS unceremoniuosly locked up the other thread and they should do the same here. Its pointless and stinks anyway you slice it. Lets all show each other how "adult" we are compared to a 14 year old and just drop it. Lewis

madmatt uses lots of !!!!!!! Thats kind of a joke thing. He is exclamatory and I was being exclamatorish, so I threw that little joke thing there. Get the premise get the joke is what I say. See initial post by guy at the top? see the question he had listed under "3."? I initially answered that some PAK and KWK could or could not fire the same ammo and then it occured to me that I was mistaken about 88mm ammo being fired by both PAK and KWK being the same. I was amending a previously held belief. It was somewhat like a revelation when it occurred to me , yes, and thanks for asking. When you go to the movies, does someone have to explain everything that goes in the plot to you also????????????????????????????????? Lewis

Its more like someone payed for a pair of pants on layaway but in the interim was given a pair of pants for free. The free pants were stolen but the recipient of the free pair of pants knew they were but that they were stolen but also slightly defective and was going to destroy said pants when he was finally delivered the paid for pants but someone found out about the pants and had to get on the internet and scream "liar liar pants on fire..!!!" and wouldnt stop yelling cause of some sense of being wronged/being totally right/ having nothing left to say. Ponderous..truly ponderous... Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: 1. It doesn't have 'disorganization' per se, but the fatigue model is meant to simulate this to some degree. Do you think squads should tire more rapidly? Or that the penalties for fatigue should be greater? 2. Firepower is reduced while running, and in fact most weapons (e.g. rifles) can't fire at all. You pretty much need an SMG. 3. Lethality is increased (to a running target). Should it be more? 4. Runners don't spot too well currently. But again, maybe the degree of penalty should be increased? Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1. Fatigue model is probably OK (if it models different states of fitness ie airborne being able to run in their sleep and volks troops getting winded from hurling a grenade..) I realize my 'splitting' of squads involuntarily would be a big coding chore but I , of course, like it. It would suck for an attacker to leave bits of half squads behind and in a pinned condition lets say. I also believe 'recombination' should only be possible once the 'halves' have attained the same state. 2. Pretty much agree with it the way it is then. In reality, we would practice a drill where when someone was getting too far out front he would stop, fire a clip, and reload so as to then be at the back of the group as it kept going. But we all had auto M16. As soon as someone would be hit, (laser miles system..) this nonsense would stop and we would seek cover. Running in the open in the face of automatic weapons is a nono. Not worth changing IMO. 3. WORTH CHANGING!! Easy tweak I suspect. May also calm the MG effectiveness crowd (they want their fire lanes). I am willing to test any tweaks BTW. Pinning penalties could be increased too? 4. WORTH CHANGING!!. Next time you go running try running in a field. Your vision is automatically going to be used directly in front of you. You cant help it. The bouncing also jars your vision and flopping gear is just distracting. I believe the US found marching fire a worthwhile tactic in WWII. It allowed lines of men to cover open ground and keep cohesion and fire on the enemy. Running has its place and is a great way to cover short distances in a short amount of time as long as used wisely. It should also not be allowed to be abused. You play you pay..I say. Lewis

HOLD THE PRESSES!!!! I seem to recall that Tigers had an electrical firing circuit for the main gun. This enabled no delay in firing BTW. A PAK weapon if it wanted to fire this round would have to have a power source!!(battery, magneto, etc) So maybe the 88 ammo was specialized!!!!! Maybe Im turning into Madmatt!!!!!!!! Man those germans... Lewis PS Who you calling a bum?

LT I believe it was a Panzer II variant. Had the interleaved roadwheels and such. Probably best used in recon in muddy conditions on the eastern front late in the war. I think the germans even wanted to put a puma turret on it (sounds cool). I feel that the whole recon role was best played out in russia due to the wide expanse of land there. On the western front, pumas, 234, lynx, etc. were expensive and the whole "fighting for recon" attitude the german believed in was inappropriate in the west. I dont think CM models a special recon bonus aside from having elite crews in these vehicles (which they were). KWK stands for kampfwagonkanone or something like that. Tank cannon really. Sometimes a PAK could fire a KWK round, sometimes not. 75mmPAKL46 ammo was different from 75mmKWKL48 but 88L71 was the same for PAK and KWK. Go figure. Lewis

Max Thats alright I dont need any help. I apoligized and if he doesnt like it the game he should sell it. BTS doesnt have a return policy but this isnt a market place either according to the bulletin board agreement. Lewis PS 1000 bucks? Ill sell mine for 900.

I also would like to see trenches, improved foxholes, etc. Also on my list: Fortified houses. Resitant to heavier firepower. Cant be entered so easily. Dugouts. Especially on the Eastern Front the troops would dig under knocked out tanks. sandbag the road wheels. Empty out gas tanks. Maybe fill the tanks with dirt/sandbags? If the tank had a belly entrance, then they would make excellent OPs. Slit trench. Ability to construct during game. Lewis

cynisism is a balancing force to gullibility. I suggest you sell your wares on ebay or somewhere else. Sorry if you were insulted. Perhaps you should advertise your city/town and might get lucky.

I conducted the following 'experiment' in light of the recent "MG effectiveness" and "Real World Defensive.." posts regarding firepower issues. My contention was that 1 defending platoon should consistantly be able to stop 2 attacking platoons usually but not an attacking company typically. I wanted a map that gave good fields of fire and chose a medium map with village, moderate tree coverage and gentle slopes. The forces were Whermacht vs US infantry. Platoons all consisted of 1 HQ and 3 squads. Forces then were Defender 31 men vs Attacker 80 men. I played as the German defender 10 times in a row (actually alot of fun) and recorded the following (in order): Axis win Draw Axis win Axis win US win Axis win . . . Axis win With 8 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss, this certainly seems to backup my contention. I generally had my german squads in the upper stories of buildings so as to draw blood till the US closed in. I would then fall back to positions where the german squads could all cover each others fronts with interlocking fire. German HQ was usually key to holding things together and more often than not payed the price. Of course this 'map exercise' honed my defensive chops and I could win more consistantly as the experiment went on. I tried to reverse the experiment as the attacker and computer defending but its apparent that I would quickly defeat the defending platoon because I would isolate one squad and rush it. I recorded 10 quick wins (most with low losses). The computer did not seem to be able to 'abuse' me this way when it was the attacker. Its apparent that I would 'abuse' my ability to just run all over the place and keep my squads in tip top shape. In real life, running tends to break up the formation of a squad. As a vet I can assure you that NCOs are always yelling to 'get your interval' (spacing between soldiers), 'cover right/left', 'watch your front', etc. This is important to keep the squad at low risk to firepower (dont bunch up) and to keep your firepower optimised (so you dont hold fire because a squad member is in your line of sight). When you are running (usually dashing a short distance), this will tend to 'string' out the squad. Faster men in the front, etc. You become an obvious target as motion more so than anything else catches the human eye (its from our hunter days). If you were to come under fire while running, the squad would lose alot of cohesion due to some people going to ground (either hit or involuntarily reacting to close hits/passing bullets). Its difficult to follow commands and your observation abilities in general suck. Its the LAST thing you would want to do while entering an enemy position (ie entering a house) as you are disorganized and entering piece meal (looks good in the movies but like kung foo movies its dumb). So IMO running in CM terms should have the following consequences: Disorginization (possible involuntary squad split result?) Reduced Firepower while running ('pinning' while moving?) Increased lethality (up the casualties while running?) Decreased spotting dramatically As an abstraction, perhaps the NUMBER of run commands that a player can give out needs to be limited per side depending on the number of squads/average rating of those squads (I was in Fort Bragg.. we ran alot)/leadership available. Its an issue that needs to be addressed. The game just kicks ass and I hope future efforts are more focused on realism as opposed to eye candy. Lewis PS My ego wont let me post what happened when I tried to stop 3 platoons of US infantry..

I didnt think it was and I agree with you about who should comment. We (me, you and others) should shut up. BTS should even consider that they might be legally held responsible for their comments also. Lewis

This is ridiculous. In the country I live in, we allow a person some amount of doubt until proven otherwise. I never read from this kid that he did anything and all the hulabaloo Im reading here is based on speculation. I thought the matter was dropped and to read what some of you are writing here makes me embarressed to be even consider myself a wargamer. A certain someone here with the propensity to numerically list things and make an idiot out of himself should leave the kid alone. You are a vicious punk and a petty tirant. To cast doubts on his future like hes committed an act of international terrorism is just uncalled for. BTS should stifle you. I think its easy to target the "easy targets". Companies have to come up with a proactive way to defeat piracy and unfortunately its going to cost them money/manhours. The "store" is left unlocked and I dont want to hear the wails of discontent when people walk in and take stuff. I hate it also when ill-guised jealousy rears its head under the banner of self-rightousness. Lewis

sniff sniff something got burned..on your CD copier. Ill give you 2 bucks.

I ordered one or two days before it sold out and got it within 5 working days. But you dont want to hear that I guess..

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JTMauney: Background: 6 years infantry mortars, 81mm and 60mm (mostly the former), USMC 1986-1992. Served in all squad positions, FO and FDC Chief. Also attended LFTCPacific Fire Support Coordinator's School and served as 81mm Fire Support Coordinator in the BN FSC Center (The looey wanted to be in the field, so I got the job-- and the education <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent post I believe VT in WWII terms were the radar fuze weapons that the US brought in to use at the end of the war?. Have you heard about the new 120mm mortar ammo the army wants? It gets shot up into the air and at the top of the parabola it deploys spring mounted fins! It then becomes a glide bomb (greatly increase range) and has a laser seeker on the warhead! It probably has less HE but can be put right where its needed. Lewis

From the MG thread: In reality it became evident during modern battles that the manuver force (ie moving guys) should be in the minority to the cover force. In close terrain this was particuly true. In Normandy it was common to have everyone in a company save a squad or half squad firing and laying down a base of fire while a small element would work its way forward on a limited mission. This could be just to get close enough so that they would try to take out one OP or MG nest. Mass wave attacks are stupid and should be avoided. MGs during WWI did mow down waves of infantry.. I think the real question should be "Does CM model infantry firepower correctly?". Can one platoon of defending dug-in infantry stop up to twice their own numbers? Without support weapons on the attacckers side (tanks/arty) I would expect they would usually (given good fields of fire). Can a platoon stop a company? Usually not but possible. Steve is absolutely wrong about MGs. It is common practice to set them up to defend where grazing fire can set up kill zones about to 200 meters out. A defender will usually wait till a wave attacker is well within this zone to open fire. This was standard practice on the eastern front and works very well. You fire a MG across your defensive front so as to get the attackers to cross your fire. You aim ahead of them and allow them to walk into it. At knee level they are entering a kill zone. You setup aiming stakes so you know when to open up. MGs in the attack support role will use the range that Steve says because they will be attacking point targets. In the defense you would not normally advertise your main line of resistance till the last moment. Its just an extension of ambushing. In reality "running" on the battlefield entails losing alot of unit cohesion (and assumes alot of command and control). I believe the game should limit the number of running commandss given out. "group" commands can count as one or something like that. Most real "charges" are rare aaand demand alot of time to setup. Lewis

Fox Since I am an old sex pistols fan I wont berate you for NOT using the correct possesive form of my name.. Lewis Fields they have eyes Woods they have ears..

I think this whole thread is full of misconceptions and vague opinions. In reality it became evident during modern battles that the manuver force (ie moving guys) should be in the minority to the cover force. In close terrain this was particuly true. In Normandy it was common to have everyone in a company save a squad or half squad firing and laying down a base of fire while a small element would work its way forward on a limited mission. This could be just to get close enough so that they would try to take out one OP or MG nest. Mass wave attacks are stupid and should be avoided. MGs during WWI did mow down waves of infantry.. I think the real question should be "Does CM model infantry firepower correctly?". Can one platoon of defending dug-in infantry stop up to twice their own numbers? Without support weaapons on the attacckers side (tanks/arty) I would expect they would usually (given good fields of fire). Can a platoon stop a company? Usually not but possible. Steve is absolutely wrong about MGs. It is common practice to set them up to defend where grazing fire can set up kill zones about 200 meters out. A defender will usually wait till a wave attacker is well within this zone to open fire. This was standard practice on the eastern front and works very well. You fire a MG across your defensive front so as to get the attackers to cross your fire. You aim ahead of them and allow them to walk into it. At knee level they are entering a kill zone. You setup aiming stakes so you know when to open up. MGs in the attack support role will use the range that Steve says because they will be attacking point targets. In the defense you would not normally advertise your main line of resistance till the last moment. Its just an extension of ambushing. In reality "running" on the battlefield entails losing alot of unit cohesion (and assumes alot of command and control). I believe the game should limit the number of running commandss given out. "group" commands can count as one or something like that. Most real "charges" are rare aaand demand alot of time to setup. Lewis

John If you do a search you will find a discussion regarding the decision to model the pillboxes/bunkers as immobile vehicles and thats why crews pop out. I see now there are no trenches in the game and feel that foxholes are pretty badly modeled and bunkers misunderstood. Its evident that the designers of the game should stop driving around a weasal in starched cammies and get a shovel and dig some real positions and get some calouses. Lewis

Ive seen FOs and 50 cals in a footrace towards my positions. They were out in front of the US infantry and no one had targeted them.

PCs can use a program like Nortons Virtual drive. You can do a minimal install then to save disk space because the virtual drive will copy the whole CDROM onto the hard drive. The game will look to the "CDROM" at Hard drive speed. I think that copy protection like this is useless. Companies have to come up with some better schemes than this. Lewis

I also like the 'filter' idea. Makes me wonder how this problem never came up during testing. I think the tank/atg 'setting' should be triggered by the game. When a AFV 'sees' a threat tank/gun, it will automatically go into this mode. Certain support vehicles like stugs could be more resistant to this perhaps. I like the ideaa of setting this pregame also to give certain TD weapons an overall mission priority. One way or another its something that I would like to see fixed ASAP. I am doing all kinds of gamey shuffling of armor so as to minimize the chance that they spy a one man crew remainder and make him job one. In villars I had 4 german tanks ALL targeting the same 2 man crew from a carrier. Unbelievable. Lewis